Does Einstein's T.R make any type of B.B. theory impossible?

[EarthScienceguy]

Question to debate

Does Einstein's theory of relativity make anytype of big bang scenario impossible?

Einstein's theory of relativity speaks of an universe in which past present and future all exist.

https://www.pbs.org/video/nova-the-fabr ... n-of-time/

starting at 19.00

If past, present and future can all exist then the Big Bang had to create not just the beginning of our present timeline but every moment every in our entire timeline. Everything that we perceive as happening in a logical chronological order would had to have been created by chance at the "big bang".

Talk about ludicrous speed.

If your answer is you have faith that science will one day come up with a solution, how would free will not be violated?

[Divine Insight]

Einstein's theory of relativity speaks of an universe in which past present and future all exist

Actually this isn't true. And Brian Greene should be ashamed of himself for teaching this as if it's meaningful physics.

All Brian Greene is talking about there is our "imaginary now slices". Not anything that physics can actually support.

In fact, if the alien on the bicycle were to actually traverse the distance across the universe to reach the points that are on these "imaginary now slices" we can actually predict precisely where the alien would end up in both space and time.

So Einstein's Theory of Relativity actually shows us precisely where the alien would end up. It doesn't really matter what the alien thought of as an "imaginary now slice"

In fact, when the alien is moving away from a position in space, the space behind him appears to be further and further into the past. That doesn't mean that those past events need to actually exist "now".

And the same thing is true when the alien is moving toward distance places in space. By the time the alien actually makes it to his destination what he thought was the future, actually become his "now" the moment he arrives.

So these so-called "now slices" are nothing more than how humans think about these things. It doesn't mean that Beethoven must actually be alive when the alien is riding his bicycle away from earth. It's just how the alien would think about time. That's all.

So unfortunately Brian Greene's presentation on this is quite misleading. The presentation appears to be suggesting that all of these events must necessarily exist "simultaneously", but there is nothing in physics that requires this to be the case.

This is nothing more than an explanation of how humans intuitively think about time. Not how the universe actually works.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Brian Greene is not the only one that says that past, present and future exist. If one can travel to the past then the past must still exist. If one can travel to the future then the future must exist. If an alien can have a "now" slice that takes them to the past then the past must still exist.

Time is relative to the observer (Einstein 1961). Since there are innumerable observers, due to gravity, velocity and other variables, there is no universal “past, present, future� (Einstein 1905a,b, 1906, 1915a, 1961)

Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

Just as Einstein's own Relativity Theory led Einstein to reject time, Feynman’s Sum over Histories theory led him to describe time simply as a direction in space. Feynman’s theory states that the probability of an event is determined by summing together all the possible histories of that event. For example, for a particle moving from point A to B we imagine the particle traveling every possible path, curved paths, oscillating paths, squiggly paths, even backward in time and forward in time paths. Each path has an amplitude, and when summed the vast majority of all these amplitudes add up to zero, and all that remains is the comparably few histories that abide by the laws and forces of nature. Sum over histories indicates the direction of our ordinary clock time is simply a path in space which is more probable than the more exotic directions time might have taken otherwise.

In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:

Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.
Feynman

It seems that Greene is simply describing Einstein's theory, which means it doesn't look good for the Big Bang theory.

[Divine Insight]

If an alien can have a "now" slice that takes them to the past then the past must still exist.

Where do you get the idea that the alien can have a now slice that "takes" them to the past?

When the alien had a now slice where Beethoven would be alive on earth the alien was actually moving AWAY from the earth, not toward. So he certainly wasn't on any path that would take him to Beethoven.

Time is relative to the observer (Einstein 1961). Since there are innumerable observers, due to gravity, velocity and other variables, there is no universal “past, present, future� (Einstein 1905a,b, 1906, 1915a, 1961)

So what?

And actually you're not quite correct. There is a universal "present". What changes for everyone is what they imagine the past and future might be.

Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

I'm sure Einstein was making a joke. His very own theory shows that there is absolutely "Space-time". And I'm quite certain that Einstein wasn't expecting to meet up with any dead people.

The illusion that Einstein was referring to was the classical view.

Just as Einstein's own Relativity Theory led Einstein to reject time

Sorry but Einstein never rejected time. What he rejected was the classical picture of absolute time.

Feynman’s Sum over Histories theory led him to describe time simply as a direction in space. Feynman’s theory states that the probability of an event is determined by summing together all the possible histories of that event. For example, for a particle moving from point A to B we imagine the particle traveling every possible path, curved paths, oscillating paths, squiggly paths, even backward in time and forward in time paths. Each path has an amplitude, and when summed the vast majority of all these amplitudes add up to zero, and all that remains is the comparably few histories that abide by the laws and forces of nature. Sum over histories indicates the direction of our ordinary clock time is simply a path in space which is more probable than the more exotic directions time might have taken otherwise.

Actually Feynman's sum over histories demonstrates that there are many different ways to mathematically think about a particular behavior.

Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

So the example that Brian Greene was giving was expressed using a basic idea of 3D space with a Newtonian Linear Timeline. That's not the type of 4D space-time that Einstein's theory describes.

It seems that Greene is simply describing Einstein's theory, which means it doesn't look good for the Big Bang theory.

Not at all. To the contrary Brian Greene's presentation was actually appealing to the obsolete intuitive ideas of an absolute space evolving over a classically intuitive timeline.

The concept of time dilation played no role in the graphical representation that Brian Greene was using.

Once you take into account the effects of time dilation any imaginary scenarios where Beethoven must exist simply because some alien is riding bicycle on an alien planet instantly vanish.

Like I say, shame on Brian Greene for even having made that video. All he did was attempt to create a graphic presentation based on a classical Newtonian worldview and then overlay the effect of Relativity on top of that. He should have known better than to have done that. All he truly managed to do was give a lot of people a seriously wrong idea of what Relativity Theory actually has to say about this.

And now you are trying to use this totally wrong picture to try to claim that this must mean that the Big Bang could not have ever happened.

I can guarantee that Brian Greene accepts that the Big Bang has happened and would not agree with your conclusions.

In fact, did you miss the part of his entire graphic display? He actually had the Big Bang as part of his graphics.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

What Greene is proposing is the "Block theory" of the universe.

Peter Dizikes | MIT News Office
January 28, 2015


“If you walk into a cocktail party and say, ‘I don’t believe that time passes,’ everyone’s going to think you’re completely insane,� says Brad Skow, an associate professor of philosophy at MIT.

He would know: Skow himself doesn’t believe time passes, at least not in the way we often describe it, through metaphorical descriptions in which we say, as he notes, “that time flows like a river, or we move through time the way a ship sails on the sea.�

Skow doesn’t believe time is ever in motion like this. In the first place, he says, time should be regarded as a dimension of spacetime, as relativity theory holds — so it does not pass by us in some way, because spacetime doesn’t. Instead, time is part of the uniform larger fabric of the universe, not something moving around inside it.

Now in a new book, “Objective Becoming,� published by Oxford University Press, Skow details this view, which philosophers call the “block universe� theory of time.

In one sense, the block universe theory seems unthreatening to our intuitions: When Skow says time does not pass, he does not believe that nothing ever happens. Events occur, people age, and so on. “Things change,� he agrees.

However, Skow believes that events do not sail past us and vanish forever; they just exist in different parts of spacetime. (Some physics students who learn to draw diagrams of spacetime may find this view of time intuitive.) Still, Skow’s view of time does lead to him to offer some slightly more unusual-sounding conclusions.

For instance: We exist in a “temporally scattered� condition, as he writes in the new book.

“The block universe theory says you’re spread out in time, something like the way you’re spread out in space,� Skow says. “We’re not located at a single time.�

Spotlighting the alternatives

In “Objective Becoming,� Skow aims to convince readers that things could hardly be otherwise. To do so, he spends much of the book considering competing ideas about time — the ones that assume time does pass, or move by us in some way. “I was interested in seeing what kind of view of the universe you would have if you took these metaphors about the passage of time very, very seriously,� Skow says.

In the end, Skow finds these alternatives lacking, including one fairly popular view known as “presentism,� which holds that only events and objects in the present can be said to exist — and that Skow thinks defies the physics of spacetime.

Skow is more impressed by an alternative idea called the “moving spotlight� theory, which may allow that the past and future exist on a par with the present. However, the theory holds, only one moment at a time is absolutely present, and that moment keeps changing, as if a spotlight were moving over it. This is also consistent with relativity, Skow thinks — but it still treats the present as being too distinct, as if the present were cut from different cloth than the rest of the universal fabric.

“I think the theory is fantastic,� Skow writes of the moving spotlight idea. “That is, I think it is a fantasy. But I also have a tremendous amount of sympathy for it.� After all, the moving spotlight idea does address our sense that there must be something special about the present.

“The best argument for the moving spotlight theory focuses on the seemingly incredible nature of what the block universe theory is saying about our experience in time,� Skow adds.

Still, he says, that argument ultimately “rests on a big confusion about what the block universe theory is saying. Even the block universe theory agrees that … the only experiences I’m having are the ones I’m having now in this room.� The experiences you had a year ago or 10 years ago are still just as real, Skow asserts; they’re just “inaccessible� because you are now in a different part of spacetime.

That may take a chunk of, well, time to digest. But by treating the past, present, and future as materially identical, the theory is consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them. And at MIT, that doesn’t sound insane at all.

What I am proposing is consistent with the laws of physics as we know them.

[Divine Insight]

What Greene is proposing is the "Block theory" of the universe.

I don't see where Greene was proposing anything. He was simply explaining one possible interpretation of Einstein's Relativity. And far more importantly he was actually relying heavily on the classical physics ideas of absolute space and absolute time. Two concepts that Einstein's Relativity reject.

Greene didn't even mention the effect of time dilation in his presentation. And for good reason. Had he brought time dilation into the picture it would have destroyed the classical view of absolute time and space that "Block Theory" requires.

What I am proposing is consistent with the laws of physics as we know them.

Sorry but that's simply not true. What you are proposing is based on your misunderstanding of the laws of physics as we know them.

By the way, you have created this thread in an attempt to argue against the Big Bang theory and you are attempting to use Brian Greene's video to support your claims.

Go back and look at the video @ 20:16 where Brian Greene directly references the Big Bang. So he's hardly supporting your views.

[harvey1]

Greene didn't even mention the effect of time dilation in his presentation. And for good reason. Had he brought time dilation into the picture it would have destroyed the classical view of absolute time and space that "Block Theory" requires.

The Growing Block theory is completely compatible with time dilation. Defenders of it includes the brilliant Michael Tooley among others.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

I never said that Greene did support my claim. But this is the logical interpretation of theory. If past, present and future exists then they all of time had to come into existence at the same time otherwise Einstein's theory of relativity would be violated.

You have tried to argue that Greene's view of Einstein's theory of relativity was not correct. I have shown that many of the great names of the physics world have the same view as Greene portrays in his video and that this view does not violate any laws of physics. In fact the laws of physics describe the universe in terms of past, present and future all existing at the same time.

[Divine Insight]

Greene didn't even mention the effect of time dilation in his presentation. And for good reason. Had he brought time dilation into the picture it would have destroyed the classical view of absolute time and space that "Block Theory" requires.

The Growing Block theory is completely compatible with time dilation. Defenders of it includes the brilliant Michael Tooley among others.

If anyone thinks that it's meaningful to say that Beethoven must still exist because of the alien's imagination of a timeline of a classical "Now", they are sorely mistaken.

And if anyone thinks that the alien could ever create a pathway that would take the alien to Beethoven, then they can't possibly understand Relativity Theory or time dilation.

I feel seriously sorry for anyone who has a Ph.D. in physics and thinks that any of this makes sense with respect to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. How they managed to obtain a Ph.D. in physics is a serious question. Apparently universities hand out degrees without any way of knowing whether their graduates have truly understood anything.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]